Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/23/2009 R July 23, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 23, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Nicolas Hemes (Alternate) Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Heriminio Ortega (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director J en Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES P ARTICIP A TING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. June 25, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion to Dismiss 1. BCC vs. Marek Okenka & Lenka Okenkova CEB NO. CEVR20080003423 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Platinum Coast Financial Corp. 2. BCC vs. Bruce G. Wood as Tr. of Bruce G. Wood Revocable Tr. 3. BCC vs. Rafael Santos & Zonia Barginer 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. LaSalle Bank National Assoc. as Tr. 2. BCC vs. Brian G & Dara L Gorman 3. BCC vs. AMG Properties, Inc. 4. BCC vs. Mark Goodman 5. BCC vs. Klemco LLC. 6. BCC vs. Klemco LLC. 7. BCC vs. Empire Developers Group, LLC. B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. Heriberto & Antonio Perez 2. Mark Brecher 3. Grisel Diaz 4. Naples Property Services, LLC. 5. Innovation Construction & Development, LLC. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 27, 2009 11. ADJOURN CEB NO. CESD20080005688 CEB NO. CESD20080003740 CEB NO. CESD20090000849 CEB NO. CESD20080007554 CEB NO. CESD20080008567 CEB NO. 2007090454 CEB NO. CESD20080006858 CEB NO. CESD20090002071 CEB NO. CESD20090002075 CEB NO. CESD20080014496 CEB NO. CESD20080000222 CEB NO. 2007-05 CEB NO. 2007040121 CEB NO. 2007050653 CEB NO. 2004-75 July 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for July. 23rd, 2009. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Heriminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? Page 2 July 23, 2009 MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Nicolas Hemes? MR. HEMES: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you have any changes to the agenda? MS. WALDRON: Yes, we do. Under stipulations, we will be moving Item C.3 under hearings. It's BCC versus Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer, Case CESD20090000849. Actually, under motions we have two motions for continuance. They will be Item 5.A.2 from the agenda, BCC versus Mark Goodman, Case CESD20080006858. And also motion for continuance will be Item 4.C.2, BCC versus Bruce G. Wood, as trust of Bruce G. Wood Revocable Trust, Case CESD20080003740. We're also adding to motion for extension of times. The first will be Case BCC versus Raymond Charles and Bolomin Charles, Case 2007110124. The second case will be BCC versus Reynaldo Cortez, Jr., Case CESD20080008613. Under Item 5.A, motion for imposition of fines, number three, BCC versus AMG Properties, Inc., Case 2007090454 is being withdrawn by the county. Number five under motion for imposition of fines, BCC versus Klemco, LLC, Case CESD20090002071 is being withdrawn by the county. Item 5.A.6, BCC versus Klemco, LLC, Case CESD20090002075, is being withdrawn by the county. And Item 5 .A. 7, BCC versus Empire Developers Group, LLC, Case CESD20080014496, is being withdrawn by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further changes? MS. WALDRON: That's all. Page 3 July 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll make a motion we accept the changes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Approval of the minutes for June 25th, 2009 hearing. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to approve the minutes. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in fa -- THE COURT REPORTER: He's an alternate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I need a second, not from the alternate. Alternates cannot vote. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: I abstain, because I was not here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other people abstaining? MR. DEAN: (Indicating.) Page 4 July 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have two abstaining. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We're going to move on to public hearings/motions. And the first one is a motion to dismiss, BCC versus Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova. I had the most difficulty with this one last time, too. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: The county's recommending that we dismiss the order -- the case because of different circumstances that have evolved on the property since the case was first heard in front of the board. There are other options that the property owner can proceed with in order to comply with the county's regulations. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to withdraw the case. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me. I just also want to make a note for the record that there is an order that's entered in this case. So part of your motion to dismiss will include motion to vacate and set aside the prior order. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to dismiss the case and also a motion -- or a dismissal of the motion for the extension. Is that correct? The order that goes along with it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to vacate, is that the MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, we're vacating your prior Page 5 July 23, 2009 findings of fact order. MR. KELLY: So moved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MS. WALDRON: Just for the record, there's also an expansion of time order too, which will have to be included in that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, there is? Okay. MR. KELLY: I stated that as well. I thought that's what you were originally referring to. Got it now, all three parts. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next motion we have is motion to -- for an extension. And that should be Charles. MR. LARSEN: Is it Goodman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Doesn't matter which order, right? MS. WALDRON: No. (Speakers were duly sworn.)r Page 6 July 23, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please, and spelling? MR. CHARLES: Raymond Charles. R-A-Y-M-O-N-D. Charles. MR. WALKER: Investigator Weldon Walker. W - E- L- D-O- N. Walker. Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain to me why you're looking for your extension of time. Please explain to the board why you're looking for an extension of time. He will have to be sworn in also to speak. (Mr. Bolomin Charles was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name and spelling of your last name, please? MR. CHARLES: My name is Bolomin. B-O-L-O-M-I-N. Charles. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I asked why you need another extension of time. MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: The reason why I come here again, because I find the engineer, he give me the plan. So I had to get plan to the office over there. So when they check it out, they says he needs something to put on it. So they send me a letter and I took that letter to him, so he says he's going to call someone at the office so you know he can get an arrangement. But I never get chance to written (sic) it. That's why, you know, I'm ask for the extension. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Investigator Walker, do you feel as though the Charles' have been diligent and this is more of a permitting, paperwork, engineering type issue? MR. WALKER: Yes, I do. Yeah, I do. MR. KELLY: So really, County doesn't have any objection to the extension of time? MR. WALKER: Not at all. He actually did what was requested Page 7 July 23, 2009 of him. His engineer, Mr. Barrera, gave him the information. He submitted it. Our research reflects that the permits were applied for. They went through their stages, but it did get rej ected. And he took that information, again, as he said, to the engineer. The engineer has yet to respond. I guess he kind of keeps putting them off. I've attempted to contact them as well, and all I get is a full mailbox. So based on his efforts and my efforts, I believe that, you know, he's made effort to really get it resolved. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How many days do you think you can feel good about an extension that you have everything done? MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: Depend the engineer. I have to go check this afternoon day. He told me to call him. So I give him a call. Themailboxisfull.SoI-- you know, I have to check out exactly. That's why I asked for -- it can be 90 days again, if you can have me get it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: According to his letter that was written to Mr. Walker, it does ask for 90 days. And are you looking for 90 days -- let me see. When was the original motion, the extension, 90 days? 30th of April, so that would be -- MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: It was to July 12th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- July 30th. Are you looking for 90 days from July 30th or 90 days from today? I guess would be the only -- MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: Ninety days from the 23rd? It can be from July 30th to the October. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifwe're going to make a motion, if whoever makes the motion could stipulate from July 30th, not from Page 8 July 23, 2009 today. MR. KELLY: Another quick question. If this takes another 90 days to get the permitting process, it doesn't leave the respondent a lot of time to actually complete the construction repairs. Is there a -- I don't remember exactly the details behind it. I know that it's some kind of addition work. But is there work to be done? MR. WALKER: From what I understand, there's a few replacements and some beam work that was done that was supposed to arrive, some reinforcement. And from what I understand from the engineer, it's not a complicated process as much as it is making sure that it falls in the realms of what code requires. So I don't -- I don't feel, based on the information that he provided me, that it would be a lengthy process. But again, I think the biggest problem they're running into is actually the engineer and making contact with him. So what I'm going to do is, again, I'll try to be as aggressive as I can with them, in support of him following it through and getting it done. Because there are a few barriers there I think, so -- MR. KELLY: Thank you. My comment to the board would be then maybe another 30 days on top of the 90 to help with construction once the permits are secured. MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, I thought they -- didn't they already complete the construction and they just didn't have the permits for it? It's an overhang outside the front door? MR. KELLY: But there's additional bracing that needs to be applied. MR. LARSEN: Is that the issue, do you need additional bracing? MR. KELLY: Investigator? MR. WALKER: Yeah, what I -- the permit is actually a permit by affidavit. So I guess the actual information that was submitted, based on the work that was done, there was some needs for Page 9 July 23, 2009 improvements. And some of that was beam work. But again, the work is completed, but there's still need for something to be corrected. So that's the route that they're going. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- do I have any other questions from the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to give them 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MRS. CHARLES: How many days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 120 from what date? From today's hearing, or -- MR. LARSEN: I thought it was from July 30th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or from July 30th. MR. LARSEN: July 30th, 2009. MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a second. MR. DEAN: Second the motion. The hearing's closed, we're making a motion, okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 10 July 23, 2009 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. You have 120 days from July 30th. MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: Okay, sir, thank you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MR. BOLOMIN CHARLES: Have a nice day. MRS. CHARLES: Have a good day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You too. The next motion will be -- next motion of time will be Cortez. (At which time, Francesca Cortez, Fernando Cortez and Maria Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can explain why you'd like extension of time, please. MRS. CORTEZ: Well, the bank give us -- they give us a letter that said that we were going to get a loan to payoff the amount we owed, but I don't know what's going on, but it's taking so long. And I was worried about the 30 days coming up, so that's the reason I'm up here today is to see if I can get another 90 days to complete the -- come up with the money or tear it off, whatever comes first. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was their time frame? MRS. CORTEZ: I think I had 30 days and 90 days the last time I was here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When are you supposed to have the work completed by right now; do you know? MS. RODRIGUEZ: She had 30 days to pay for the permit, and then they gave her 90 days to finish. Because it was permit by affidavit. But they were having problems with financially getting the money from the bank. The bank I guess is going through a hard time and they haven't given her, her check, although she was approved. So that's where they're at now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So there's been no engineer hired or Page 11 July 23, 2009 anything at this point? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Everything is finished. Everything is done. She needs to get the permit. In order to get the permit, she has to pay the fee. She asked for a loan. The loan got approved. She got the letter when she came in the last time. And we gave her 30 days to pay the $16,000. The bank never issued the check. I guess it's going through-- I don't know, they're having issues with Florida Community Bank. And so she was waiting, but no money. MR. KAUFMAN: So you've gotten a copy of the approval letter from the bank? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I do remember, she did come in with a letter. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I've got a copy, if you need to see it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay. MR. LARSEN: And what is the $16,000 for? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It was for a house that was built without a permit. That was for impact fees. MR. LARSEN: And the house is being occupied? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. No one lives in it. MR. KELLY: The operational costs, have they been paid? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. The whole 16,000 is for the operational cost and for -- oh, for here? Did you pay? When you came to court -- MRS. CORTEZ: Yeah, we paid. MS. RODRIGUEZ: -- did you pay the operational -- MRS. CORTEZ: No, we only paid 80 something dollars. MS. RODRIGUEZ: So she did. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? The permit fee has not been paid, correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. DEAN: And how much would that be? Page 12 July 23, 2009 MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the permit itself? MR. DEAN: Yes. MS. RODRIGUEZ: The whole fee is $16,000. MR. DEAN: So it's not separate? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Uh-uh. Impact fees, everything is included. MR. DEAN: I asked that question because I wonder would a bank give a loan if they could not get a permit. So it would be subject to that too. MS. RODRIGUEZ: That's the total amount that's due. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. MR. LARSEN: So the permit is just hung up because they have to pay their impact fees. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And they need a loan to do this? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. LARSEN: I'm of the mind to give them the 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a motion? MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to give them an extension of 90 days. MR. DEAN: I'll-- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. DEAN: -- second the motion. MR. KELLY: Can I ask for clarification on the motion. Was that 90 days then on both parts of the order? Originally they had 90 days to get the permit and then 90 days after that to complete whatever work is necessary? MR. LARSEN: If I understand, the work has been completed, right? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The work has been completed. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So it's just a matter of getting the bank to give them the loan to pay the money to the county so they can get their permit issued and they'd be done. Page 13 July 23,2009 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MRS. CORTEZ: Correct. MR. KELLY : Well, I believe the time frame now falls outside the second part of that order. And my suggestion would be to structure the motion to where if you extend the first part of the motion 90 days, it then extends the second part of the motion as well. So the second one doesn't expire before the first. MR. LARSEN: All right. All right, the order of the board. Number one, operational costs, they have been paid. Number two, shall apply for and obtain all required permits for building structures within 30 days of this hearing or fined at $200 a day. Well, they've applied for them, they haven't received them, okay, so they haven't obtained. So there would be an extension of time of 90 days for them to obtain the required permits under paragraph two of the order. Okay, so -- MS. WALDRON: Can I -- go ahead. MR. LARSEN: Well, I don't think provisions three and four are that applicable. That's the notice to the county and a failure to abate. So besides extending the time to obtain a permit's 90 days, what else do we need to do? MS. WALDRON: The actual-- the order states that they've got the 30 days to obtain the permits, and then they actually have 90 days from the permit issuance. So there's not really a date specified in there. So if you extend the first part 90 days, it's going to still be 90 days from whenever the permit's issued. MR. LARSEN: Excellent. Thank you. You're talking about to obtain a certificate of occupancy? MR. KELLY: That's correct-- MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. KELLY: -- yes. But Jenjust cleared it up. It's good. MR. LARSEN: All right. So I move to extend the time from 90 Page 14 July 23, 2009 days for them to obtain the permit. MR. KAUFMAN: Second goes along with it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you understand what we just did? You have 90 days from today to get the permit. And then another 90 days to complete -- or to get the certificate of occupancy. MRS. CORTEZ: Okay, from today I got 90 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. Is that what your motion is, 90 days -- MR. LARSEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- from today? MR. LARSEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. LARSEN: You've got to go to the bank, work it out, try to get the loan to pay the county. They're $16,000 within 90 days from today. If you don't have the loan within that time period, go back to the code enforcement officer, tell them, they'll put it back on the calendar and we'll readdress it. Okay? MRS. CORTEZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Page 15 July 23, 2009 Next we're going to move on to motion to continue. And the first one will be Mark Goodman. (Mr. Letourneau and Mr. Goodman were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Do you guys have the letter -- for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. MS. WALDRON: For the record -- I don't know if you want to swear me In. (Ms. Waldron was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron. I did speak to Mr. Goodman, and he is working through the process. He couldn't be here today. I don't think the county has any obj ection to giving him some more time to come back so he can be here and say what he's done himself and then argue his case at that time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So would it be best maybe to continue this till next meeting, our August meeting? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, that's probably the best way. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we move it to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 16 July 23, 2009 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. The next one will be Mr. Wood, or Bruce G. Wood. MS. WALDRON: If you guys want to move to the stipulation agreement and then we can come back to that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we'll move to stipulations. Well, we probably need to amend the agenda. MR. LARSEN: Have you spoken with Mr. Wood? MS. WALDRON: I have not. But I know that the investigator has. She did tell me this morning. She's here. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. I spoke with Bruce -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need to swear you in. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. (Ms. Sorrels was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure, A-Z-U-R-E, Sorrels, S-O-R-R-E-L-S. I spoke with Mr. Wood yesterday by phone. The reason why he's asking for the continuance, gentlemen, is he's got some medical conditions that have arose, and he's attending to doctors' appointments. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did he state when he would like the continuance till? MS. SORRELS: No, he didn't. According to the letter that he wrote, he said any other day. Yeah, I didn't actually ask him, and he didn't specify. MR. LARSEN: All right, I make a motion to continue it to our next hearing date. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 1 7 July 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We are going to move on to stipulated hearings. And it will be BCC versus Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer. (Mr. Santos, Mr. Mucha and Ms. Barginer were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name for the record. MR. SANTOS: Rafael Santos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Investigator? MR. MUCHA: Investigator Joe Mucha. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Do you have a stipulated -- okay, you'll have to put it up. Would you like to read the order, please. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. I met with Mr. Rafael Santos this morning, and he is here on behalf of himself and also representing his mother, Zonia Barginer. He agreed that the violations -- he's in violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26(B), 104.5.1.4.4. And described as a recurring violation of letting permit expire for addition made to the structure on the property. He's agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $85.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing, Page 18 July 23, 2009 and to abate all violations by: He must request or cause inspections through to certificate of occupancy for Permit 2009021403 within 90 days of this hearing, or obtain a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion for removal of all improvements made within 60 days, or a fine of $250 a day until violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. For some reason it came up twice. It's only supposed to be on there once. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Santos, do you agree with this? MR. SANTOS: The paper that is there? Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any questions of the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. With regards to this particular proj ect, this is an addition that you've built? MR. SANTOS: That I'm doing, yes. MR. ORTEGA: And at what stage is this addition in? MR. SANTOS: I have already done the framing. I have already done the final roofing. I also -- one of the inspectors came to do the installation. MR. ORTEGA: The inspection? MR. SANTOS: The inspection. But I also did all the electrical. But it didn't pass, so I had to do it agaIn. MR. ORTEGA: So at this point you're not really drywalling, in other words? MR. SANTOS: Say that again? MR. ORTEGA: There's no drywall installed yet at this point. I'm Page 19 July 23, 2009 just -- MR. SANTOS: No, I haven't done it yet. But I have already bought the materials for the drywall and materials for the -- I have already bought the stucco. So I just need time and that's the reason. And also money. MR. ORTEGA: Ninety days to complete all this? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How big of an addition is it? MR. SANTOS: It's only two bedrooms. MR. ORTEGA: So basically the size ofa garage? MR. SANTOS: No, no, it was only two bedrooms. MR. ORTEGA: Two bedrooms. MR. SANTOS: I don't know, if you can just give me like a -- I'm not too sure, but like three months ago I reapply for the permit. And I know that I have been spending a lot of time doing it, because it has been almost two years. But it was because of money. But I pay the permit like three months ago, $600. And I don't know if you can -- three months is okay, but if you can give me more time I would -- I'm going to finish it. It's almost done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have impact fees been paid and everything? MR. SANTOS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As an addition there's not -- MR. MUCHA: And he has a permit issued. He's been going through the inspection process. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Let me ask a question. Paragraph two, is there an internal inconsistency if you give him 90 days on one aspect but only 60 days on the other? MR. MUCHA: Well, I initially was going to give him 60 days on each. And he's pretty much told me that he's going to follow through and get this thing permitted, so I didn't feel the need to change that. But I did want to give him the additional time to get it finished.i Page 20 July 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Right. But shouldn't the second provision be also 90 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. It's contradictory. MR. LARSEN: Change it to 90 days. MR. MUCHA: Okay, no problem. MR. L'ESPERANCE: But I think I also hear the respondent requesting perhaps an additional 90 days, so perhaps both of these numbers should be 120? MR. LARSEN: I have no objection to that. MR. KELLY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELLY: Investigator Mucha, do you know how many times he's reapplied for that permit? MR. MUCHA: This would be the third time. MR. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I think Mr. L'Esperance had a point-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept the stipulation as submitted, with the amended dates of 120 days in both of the locations for paragraph -- sub-paragraph two. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 21 July 23, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Before you leave today, what we just decided, that you have 120 days. But what I want you to do is he's going to have to cross out the dates and change the dates to 90 days and the 60 days to 120 . We need you to initial both of those so you're aware that it's 120 days. MR. SANTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Have a good day. Next will be hearings, BCC versus Platinum Coast Financial Corp. (Ms. Sorrels and Ms. Pass were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name. MS. PASS: Pam Pamela. P-A-S-S. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080005688, dealing with the violations of electrical conduit, wiring and outlets have been added to, installed, replaced and removed throughout structure. Plumbing has been added for the addition of sinks and toilets. Partition walls have been demolished and rebuilt. A bar and stage have been built and a lot has been demolished. All of the above-mentioned construction has been started and/or completed without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. The location of the violation is 11150 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 00439000008. Service was provided on March 6th, 2009. And I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. Exhibit 1 -- B-1 will be five photographs dated 4/24 of'08. And B-2 will be 18 photographs dated 4/25/08. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the photos. MR. KELLY: Azure, has the respondent seen them and lPage 22 July 23, 2009 approved them? MS. SORRELS: They have been provided copies, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: All right, we have a very unique situation here. And I'm going to try to keep it very short and clear as possible, because it can get a little confusing. A complaint was made on this property. And I made a site visit on 4/24 of '08. I met with the business owner, Juan, and I explain to him my purpose there and I asked if I could walk around. And he allowed me to walk around and he answered all my questions. As walking through I noticed a lot of things that were either in the progress -- or in the process of being done or has already been completed. I'll go ahead and start showing the photographs here. This is on the outside of the building. This is an AC disconnect. And it was verified with the business owners that that had been replaced. And of course there was no permits. This is on the back of the structure. You can see the conduit coming out of the wall, burning down to a box and into the ground. Page 23 July 23, 2009 Just material and debris showing the electrical work had been in progress. Some more debris showing demolition, removal of things. This is the AC unit. Again, the stand that it's on would have to be permitted, the AC would have to be tied down and it would have to meet code, so that would also require a permit. This is on the inside of the structure. And this is some plumbing that has been added into the men's bathroom to add additional sinks and toilets. MR. ORTEGA: I'm sorry, this is a commercial space? MS. SORRELS: I do apologize, it's commercial -- it was a commercial building but it's on a PUD property, property that's zoned PUD. And we're going to get into that whole scenario in just a second. This is an outlet that I was just taking a picture of, it had been added. And again, everything that I'm showing you has been confirmed by the business owner that had been replaced or added. Some more plumbing work. This is behind the bar. They have a stainless steel sink and they had extended the plumbing from what was existing in the wall out to the sink. There's a closer picture of it coming out of the ground in the wall and being added to. A hot water heater had been installed. The conduit that is extending from and going up the wall is new, so it's electrical that's been ran, would require permits. This is the stage that had been built. And behind the stage you see a lot of electrical outlet boxes and conduit as well had been installed with no permits. This is the construction of the bar that's on the inside. This is one of the partition walls that had been demoed and rebuilt. It's a partition wall that covers the entryway to the women's restroom. Page 24 July 23, 2009 More electrical installation. The next two pictures are the close-ups of what you had seen behind the stage. As you can clearly see, it's very new. And even shiny still. This is the conduit and the electrical box, and you actually see it on the outside in the rear of the building going into the ground. Some more electrical out -- or that's an electrical panel that had been added. This is in the men's restroom, they had erected a partition wall to enclose a regular toilet from the urinals and the sink. The plumbing that had been extended from the existing and coming out to the sinks. The installation of the two urinals. The plumbing work that was inside the wall where they had cut the wall out to do plumbing. And the last is just again pictures of construction material that was being stored on the property, indicating that there was stuff taking place. The business owners, both Juan and Eddie, I met with them as well on the following day, and they provided me contracts from Pagona Construction. They had signed contracts with this company. And in those contracts that I had in my possession and read through, they were stipulated in there that they would be responsible, the construction company, Pagona Construction Company would be responsible for obtaining all required building permits. They unfortunately did not. That situation had been turned over to contractor licensing and they handled that end of it. However, it left the business owners in a position where they've already spent a ton of money and had work done and was under the understanding that it was being done properly. Shortly after that -- this all took place on the 24th and the 25th of April in 2008. Page 25 July 23, 2009 In July I was contacted and I met with a Vince, who is a contractor that was contacted by the business owners, and he wanted to meet with me. So I met with him and explained to him what would need to be permitted and what work would need to -- what he would have to do to bring it in compliance. Long story short is after they determined what they were going to do, they went to the county, they wanted to obtain building permits, and they were rejected from the county. And here's where the PUD comes in place. Mr. Micelli had a PUD from '84 and then he amended it in '92. The PUD has sunsetted, which in laymen's terms is expired. They did not complete the PUD development in the time frame given to them according to the ordinance. Since it's been sunsetted, there -- it is in our Land Development Code, 10.02.13, the county will not issue any permitting for development of any kind until three things happen on the PUD: Either they amend the PUD, they extend it, or they rezone the property. This is a process. Any three of those processes will be extremely expensive. In the time frame that this case has opened until now, unfortunately Mr. Micelli has passed and his daughters are now taking care of the properties and stuff that he has owned. They, from my understanding, are not looking to keep the properties and they're wanting to sell them. So again, we're in a situation. And our director, Ms. Flagg, had recommended we bring this to the board, because they're in a Catch-22. The Catch-22 is we're telling them there's violations and they have to abate them, either by demo or obtain building permits. Our building department will not do either because the PUD has sunsetted. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the county attorney's recommendation or opinion? MS. SORRELS: Excuse me, sir? MR. L'ESPERANCE: The county attorney's recommendation or aPage 26 July 23, 2009 opinion, or his perspective. MS. SORRELS: To be honest with you, that was never even brought to the County Attorney. MR. KELLY: Azure, what was the result of the Collier County Contracting Licensing? MS. SORRELS: I do believe that's still going on. I did not follow through with it. Ian Jackson was handling that. I know that there was fines and stuff I believe that were imposed with that contractor, but I don't know all the details. MR. KELLY: So no restitution? MS. SORRELS: To my knowledge it would be the restitution would go to the business owners and maybe Ms. Pass can answer that. I'm not sure. After the business owners vacated that building, I really haven't had any contact with them. MR. KAUFMAN: The original inspection on this was because of a -- something was turned into code enforcement? MS. SORRELS: Correct. A complaint was made that the work was being done without permits. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, that was the complaint, work done without permits. MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. MS. PASS: And no, he has not been reimbursed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How do you keep a PUD up to date once -- I would assume that this PUD was built out, or was it not built out? MS. SORRELS: No, it was not. The PUD, to the best of my knowledge what I read through the ordinance, nothing of the PUD actually had even been started. And a PUD is good from five years of the date of the approval. And at that five years you have to submit your progress and things like that to the Planning Commission and also to the Board of County Commissioners as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So there's buildings on this site Page 27 July 23, 2009 without it showing that any work was done on it; is that what you're telling me? MS. SORRELS: This property actually has a building on it that's been there for many, many years. I don't believe that building is actually part of the PUD. Well, it's part of it, but I think it was there before the PUD was actually applied for. So since the PUD was issued or approved, nothing has been constructed since then. The building that was there was existing prior to the PUD. MR. LARSEN : Was this formally a restaurant? MS. SORRELS: It's been many things, sir. It's got a history. But yes, it was a restaurant at one point in time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you have an exterior perspective photograph for us? MS. SORRELS: As in like the building itself? That I would have to say no, I do not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question, the PUD -- what I'm trying to get at, did the PUD include this building being torn down? MS. SORRELS: No, it was -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it was incorporated within the PUD. MS. SORRELS: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before the PUD was put on it, was there any permits to the building? There had to be a permit to build the building. MS. SORRELS: Correct. And honestly, that's in '82 when that PUD was done, was -- the original PUD was in '82. And I did not check for building permits on that building. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question that I have is the building's built without a PUD on the property. MS. SORRELS: Right, the building was built prior the PUD Page 28 July 23, 2009 being approved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So now that there's no PUD on the property, why can't there be -- why can't it revert back to prior to the PUD and a permit being pulled? Because in a commercial-- a commercial zoned property doesn't necessarily need to have a PUD in place to have a building erected. So I'm not really understanding why prior to this PUD the building was built, permits obviously permitted and given and now -- I'm kind of not following that. MR. ORTEGA: Does the present zoning allow for this building? Aside from the PUD. MS. SORRELS: Yes, it would. I mean, if-- MS. PASS: It was a C-4 zoning before the PUD. But basically they're telling us that we have no zoning and we have no PUD. You have nothing. It's in limbo. So we can't do anything. MR. KAUFMAN: Except taxes. MS. PASS: Except taxes. MR. LARSEN: Let me ask a question. I mean, basically Platinum Coast Financial Corp. is the owner of the building, correct? MS. PASS: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And is it Platinum Coast that contracted for the renovations in the interior building? MS. PASS: No, it was the tenant. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So you leased the building for the tenant. MS. PASS: Right. MR. LARSEN: The tenant wanted to change it from a restaurant over to a cafe or a nightclub. MS. PASS: To make some internal improvements, yes. It was both. Prior to that, it was a little restaurant/lounge. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Now, did the tenant or tenant's contractor ever apply for permits? MS. PASS: Not to -- MS. SORRELS: No. Page 29 July 23, 2009 MS. PASS: -- my knowledge, no. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And right now you can't get permits because of this PUD hanging over your head. MS. PASS: And can't rent it, can't do anything with it. MR. LARSEN: Right. So the first question is whether or not they had permits prior to doing any of the renovations. And the second question is how much time you really need to get permits if you can get them at all. MS. PASS: Well, they're telling us that we can't get permits unless we get a PUD or go for a zoning change. There's nothing we can do with the property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I really think we need to get a legal reading from the county's attorney. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the current zoning on this property? If it was C-4 before, what -- MS. PASS: It was C-4. They tell me there is no zoning. There is no zoning, there is no PUD. It's a limbo property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it zoned ago now or -- did it revert back to ag.? MS. SORRELS: No, it has a zoning. It's very confusing the way it was even explained to me. There is -- it keeps its PUD zoning, but the zoning technically is not active because the PUD has sunsetted. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It doesn't revert back to a C-4? MS. SORRELS: Unfortunately no. MR. ORTEGA: Can you get it reverted back? MS. SORRELS: They have to go through the lengthy costly expense of doing a rezone or pursuing another PUD. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I suggest that you continue this matter to the next meeting and have the staff consult with the County Attorney's Office on options that might be available. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, because it sounds like this might not be the arena -- Page 30 July 23, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is not the correct venue for this at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, thank you. MR. LARSEN : Well, I'm not sure I agree with that, because basically there is a, you know, an allegation by the county that there was a violation of the ordinance in that they didn't get the permits. Now I don't have an objection to it being continued but basically, you know, I think the failure -- the failure of them to even apply for permits before they start the demolition of the renovations is a separate issue of whether or not they could get certain permits. I mean, if they knew that basically it would be a costly endeavor to get the permits and decided to go ahead without getting them, that's a pretty . . senous Issue. But like I said, I don't have an objection of being put over for-- MS. PASS: Well, we did -- when he hired the contractor, it said right in the contract that he was getting permits. So the tenant went in believing that it was permitted. MR. LARSEN: Ma'am, I'm not faulting you, I'm not faulting the tenant. All I'm saying is that basically, you know, it appears that the contractor who's the professional in this, you know, has put you in a very, very difficult situation. MS. PASS: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Just a question. Do you know whether or not this contractor was -- I guess he was licensed, if he went before the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Licensing board. MR. KAUFMAN: -- board. Do you know whether he was insured? And I'm assuming that if he was licensed he was insured. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think these questions are probably not -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think they're premature. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Page 3 1 July 23, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this until the next hearing and request that the county get a legal reading from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, basically I'm not sure we can direct the code enforcement people -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Request. MR. LARSEN: I have no objection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Have you spoken to the zoning -- the land planning at Collier County? MS. PASS: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Have you gone through a preap. meeting or some type of -- MS. PASS: There is no need for an application, because I have no zoning on the property. And until I have a PUD or I go for rezoning, they won't talk to you. MR. ORTEGA: I believe that-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, a second, and really discussion should be amongst us. So -- any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor -- MS. SORRELS: Sir? I'm sorry, I just wanted to -- I apologize for not bringing this up sooner. And this might change what you're discussing right now. The Board of County Commissioners has approved a resolution, 2003-55. And in that resolution that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners it states in here -- I'll put it up on the monitor for you. But paragraph three states, pursuant to Land Development Page 32 July 23, 2009 Code 2.7.3.4, the Miceli PUD is hereby considered to have sunsetted, and accordingly development will not be approved by the county for the subject site until such time as the Crestwood PUD is amended or rezoned to another zoning district consistent with the requirements of the LDC. MS. PASS: But we weren't doing development. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. SORRELS: Understood. But the way it reads is that in the Land Development Code, it reads that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this might be something that an attorney would want to -- County Attorney would want to interpret and direct -- not direct us, but maybe what this actually means. So I think a continuance -- we have a motion, we have a second. I think we're done with discussion. If we can take a vote. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Just for the board's information, because County Attorney will be involved, we will have to change venues on this, because we can't have County Attorney's Office representing both sides, the county and the board. So it will have to be changed to the special magistrate. MS. FLAGG: There's a state statute that prohibits the County Attorney's Office representing both sides. Page 33 July 23, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm asking for a read or input from the County Attorney. MS. FLAGG: And we will get that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think we'll work it out. Because the land use attorneys will consult with people in permitting to find out why they won't issue a permit and see if there's any nonconforming status or any eligibility for this property owner to proceed. Because at this point if you proceed -- you may find there's a violation, but she can't correct it unless she proceeds with a PUD amendment. I don't know whether she's the owner who has the ability to do that amendment to reestablish the PUD. It sounds like this is a PUD that has probably sunsetted some time ago, so the PUD extension that the board has just approved to your extension may not apply to this property, because it's already sunsetted. So there are some issues that the zoning staff can proceed without involvement of the code enforcement staff first to find out whether this property owner can correct it. And then you'll have more information next meeting as to what was determined. MR. KELLY: Also, I'd like to make a comment that the special magistrate is an absolutely capable and able board to the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, sure. MR. KELLY: However, I feel that this is the proper venue for this case, where you have a team of people to work on solutions. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May we have the person that you dealt with in the zoning department? Do you know who that was? MS. PASS: I have it at the office. I'll get it for you. I can tell you where he stands in the lineup. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MS. PASS: But I do have his name. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. If you could give it to Ms. Waldron, then she'll forward it to the County Attorney's Office. Page 34 July 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: Was it Ray Bellows? MS. PASS: No. I never got past the front counter. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we're done here. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. You were correct when you said it was a little confusing. MS. SORRELS: I apologize. I tried to keep it as clear as possible. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. I think we're moving on to old business, if I'm not mistaken. Motion for imposition of fines and liens. BCC versus LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee. Sorry, Jennifer, we're not going to make your 10:00. (At which time, Ms. Trueman and Mr. Paul were duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: Renald Paul, for the record, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a). Location of violation: 2222 51st Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. Description of violation: Nonpermitted extension to the existing home. Added doors and windows to the addition, pool, tiki hut and shed. On February 26,2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4434, Page 1357 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 23rd, 2009. Page 35 July 23, 2009 The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 28th, 2009 to July 23rd, 2009, 26 days, for the total of $5,200. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.43 have not been paid. A total recommended lien amount is $5,286.43. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain your relationship to LaSalle Bank, please? MS. TRUEMAN: I'm the listing agent for this property which just went on the market. I met out with code enforcement approximately a week and a half ago. He explained this to me. The original owner, tenant, whoever did this is now not in the property. They were evicted. We're asking that the fines -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, before that, do you have authority from LaSalle Bank to -- MS. TRUEMAN: They have requested that I come. I have nothing in writing, you know. We're trying to get the GC bids on this property in order to demo what has not been permitted and get it back to code so we can sell it. MR. LARSEN: Has there been a judgment of foreclosure? MS. TRUEMAN: I have the listing agreement. I do not have the clerk's title with me. I'm not sure if the clerk's title has it. It is listed at this point. MR. PAUL: The bank does have certificate of title for the property . MS. TRUEMAN: Do you have a date on when they did get it? MR. PAUL: It says here May 28th of2009. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does she have a -- I mean, the question would be does she have authority to represent LaSalle Bank as -- MR. ORTEGA: As the agent. Page 36 July 23, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: No. MR. ORTEGA: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Not according to our-- MS. TRUEMAN: I'm just here to find out what we need to do and to let you know that I have some GC's that have been out there. I'm waiting for bids to rectify what they have done. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, I don't have a problem with hearing testimony to help us make a decision. I just don't think she can represent the bank. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I just want to make that clear, if that's the case, that she's not representing the bank. MS. TRUEMAN: Yeah, I do not have Power of Attorney or anything like that for the bank by no means. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. If you could just state what you've been doing with GC's and so forth. MS. TRUEMAN : Well, I'm waiting for their bids to forward to the bank so we can figure out what we're going to do. The bank is very much aware of it. They were sent the photos and the code violation information. And I have been in touch. They have asked me to contract GC's, which I'm in the process of getting two or three bids on now. The original violation, there's definitely a room addition. And there was a shed that somebody was living in. It appears that way anyway. The pool has been taken down. The tiki hut has been taken down by the owner or tenant. That was not in place when I took the property over as a listing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we really can't do much with the fines because it's not been corrected. MS. TRUEMAN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's not really much we can do with the fines right now because it's not been -- the work hasn't been Page 37 July 23, 2009 corrected. So it's -- MS. TRUEMAN: Even if the bank hasn't had possession of it since May 28th, and these fines are mounting daily? MR. KELLY: Unfortunately the way the board works with the county ordinance is, is the violations are against the property, regardless of who owns it at the time or how long it's gone on or how it's changed hands. Usually the board does not like to grant any type of leniency to this point until compliance has been reached. Now, there is a provision in our rules and regulations that allows you to come back and ask for a -- MS. TRUEMAN: I'm sorry, could you speak up, I'm hard of hearing. MR. KELLY: Sorry. MS. TRUEMAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: There is a provision in our rules and regulations that will allow you to come back and request a reduction or even an abatement of the fines after all of the violations have been corrected. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I would recommend that you would have a representative from the bank to come at that point. MR. KELLY: And there is a time limit on that as well. MS. TRUEMAN: What kind of time limit have I got? MR. KELLY: I thought it was 30. Is it 30 days to ask for a reduction after we've imposed the fines? MS. WALDRON: Actually, once you impose the fines, it's out of your hands. It goes to the Board of County Commissioners. So they've got -- the county has to wait 90 days in order to forward for foreclosure to the County Attorney's Office, after you impose the lien. MS. FLAGG: And just as a point of clarification, the reason it would be imposed and the board -- the BCC has waived or mitigated fines once a lien is placed on the property. But by placing a lien, you're assuring that the buyer doesn't buy the home without knowing. Page 38 July 23, 2009 Because a lien will show up in the public record. MS. TRUEMAN: That's understandable. I had another situation in Marco Island. The bank's not going to come here. What-- MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. TRUEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next will be imposition of fines for BCC versus Brian G. and Dara L. Gorman. (At which time, Mr. Gorman and Mr. Musse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the record, please. MR. GORMAN: Brian Gorman. MR. MUSSE: Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case CESD20080008567. Violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1), Page 39 July 23, 2009 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e)(i). Location of violation: 227 Dolphin Cove Court, Bonita Springs, Florida. Folio 29910000605. Description of violation: Constructed a dock with boatlift and electrical connections without proper Collier County permits. On February 26th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR4434, Page 1354 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 22nd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 28th, 2009 to July 22nd, 2009, 25 days, for the total of $5,000. Operational costs of 86.71 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $5,086.71. MR. L'ESPERANCE: He has complied? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. LARSEN: Make a motion to abate the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MS. WALDRON: I think he's got a check for the cost. MR. LARSEN: Just the fine itself. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 40 July 23, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Nice work. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, and I think that should be -- any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already went through the consent agenda. Any reports? MS. FLAGG: Couple things. First I wanted to let you know that some of these cases are a little bit unique because the investigators are looking for new ways to help community members come into compliance. So you may be seeing some things they haven't seen before, because they're actually stepping out of the box to see if they can help community members even more. I wanted to give you some numbers on the Blight Prevention Program. Last week we had 25 violations abated by the banks. And the banks spent a total of $10,600 to abate these violations, just for that one week. For the nine months that we've implemented the Blight Prevention Program, we've had 795 cases. 337 have been abated by the banks. And the banks have spent a total of $274,000 to abate these violations. Now, the banks are abating these violations in the lis pendens status, so they're doing the abatements even though they don't have certificate of title. If it's a permitting issue that they have to go inside the house and get a permit, then we're holding that in abeyance, the case opened, until the bank gets certificate of title and then they're Page 41 July 23, 2009 going ahead and abating violations with the permitting issues also. I also -- we have two foreclosure teams, which I think I've briefed you on now, because of the volume of cases. If you've been reading the newspaper, you'll know that we've had over 10,000 properties file for foreclosure in Collier County. And it's not slowing down. The June numbers just came in and again they're higher than last year's June numbers, so the numbers are continuing to increase. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Diane, may I interject a little question here before you proceed too much further. The efforts that are being made also include exterior maintenance of these structures? MS. FLAGG: Right. What the banks are doing is they're-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Grass, yards. MS. FLAGG: -- they're maintaining grass, yards. We have the five community task force teams and they're reporting properties. The task force teams are comprised of the sheriffs office, civic associations, homeowners associations. So we basically have our fingers on the pulse of what's happening throughout our community. .And so as soon as a property is reported to us, we do a search. If it is a -- if a bank has filed a lis pendens, then we start the contacts with the banks. I will also tell you that the Board of County Commissioners did pass a motion to require a mandatory inspection of foreclosed and abandoned homes. And they've asked the realtor group and the contractors group, NABOR, CBIA and some other stakeholders, to develop the ordinance. And then it's scheduled to go back to the BCC on September 29th. And Code Enforcement and CDES is participating in the development of this working with the group to develop the ordinance. Additionally, the Code Enforcement Department has received a national award for the Blight Prevention Program, awarded through Page 42 July 23, 2009 the National Association of Counties. So that's the credit to the 50 members of the Code Enforcement Department that have worked really hard to make this Blight Prevention Program work. And lastly, one of the investigators that is part of the foreclosure team, Mr. Mario Bono, would like to present his thanks to someone that he works with. And I'm sure he'll have a few words, because he's rarely without words. MR. BONO: Thank you, Director. Good morning, gentlemen. Whatever Diane says obviously is right on the mark. We continue to struggle with this national housing climate, and we do everything possible to make it work and certainly hold the lenders accountable. We have such great relationships with the lenders right now, we pretty much make a phone call and an e-mail and it gets done. So hopefully you'll be seeing less of me and maybe more of Jennifer. Which is probably pretty good, actually. In any case, nothing happens, no success happens until we get the right people in place. And when we first created this program we had no idea it would take off as it did. This program has now been actually sent out to Palm Beach County. And V olusia County and several other counties in Florida have implemented the same program that we have right now. One county in Ohio actually has it now. So we're getting some good recognition from the program, and it keeps on rolling along. So I'm just the -- I guess one of the creators. And of course because of this person that works with me on a daily basis -- actually I spend more time with her than I do my wife -- she's the glue. She's the unsung hero. If I was a newspaper, she'd be the editor. If I was the Army, she'd be the general. So Michelle Crowley, would you mind coming up here? I don't get to do this too often. I actually was given this exclusively by HR and to nominate someone in my department for their credits and support, work ethics, performance. You name it, she does it also. Page 43 July 23, 2009 (Applause.) MS. CROWLEY: I'm unprepared, because I was just tagging along because we always go out together. So this was unexpected. Thank you very much. And as Diane said, it's a team effort. I'm the one who tracks the numbers. I keep track of the cases and the numbers. So that when NABOR or CBIA or the director of the department wants to know what we've done and where we've been, I can tabulate the numbers. But everybody works. And thank you very much. MR. LARSEN: Congratulations. Thank you. MS. FLAGG: I will also tell you there's a second foreclosure team, Investigator John Santafemia and also Investigator Tony Asaro, due to the volume of the foreclosure cases. The foreclosure teams work with the banks. If the property is -- either the bank has filed a lis pendens or the bank has certificate of title, and if the property is abandoned. So the two foreclosure teams handle all those properties. And then the investigators are working with the community task force teams, opening up the cases and also working their regular caseload in addition to this anomaly that is probably going to be with us for a while with these foreclosures. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Our next meeting is August 27th, 2009. And we are ready to adjourn. Do I hear amotion? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No need for discussion. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 44 July 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:16 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 45